The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ansh666 06:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Charles Blankenship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Careful analysis by editors is required to make an informed decision here. At first glance, it appears this subject has easily enough coverage. However, per NOTNEWS, this crime fails our notability guidelines. All the references originate from local news agencies routinely reporting on the murder and its immediate after effects. EVENTCRIT touches on why violent crimes are “good” for the news, but that does not translate to notability in the encyclopedia. The use of the encyclopedia to promote the Liveleak video is also a bit tasteless. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not promoting anything, just pointing out the video is out there for people to watch. You're missing a key point that the murder was filmed, it's been featured in lots of documentaries relating to crime. Doesn't the fact this murder was filmed count for anything? That alone makes it notable. Inexpiable (talk) 10:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the fact that it was filmed makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. YouTube is full of things that have been filmed, the vast majority of which are not notable. What makes something notable is receiving substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, independent of whether or not it has been filmed. If that coverage draws attention to it having been filmed, it is still the coverage, and not the fact that it was filmed, that makes it notable. Agricolae (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What if that something has received substantial coverage by being watched over and over again though, seen as it was filmed? It's more than just a reported crime in the news, this is a crime with actual video evidence that has been repeatedly watched and shown in many documentaries receiving in excess of millions of views. Inexpiable (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia content is not driven by the number of YouTube views. Coverage does not mean being watched. It means it has to have received substantial reportage by reliable sources (those with a reputation for accuracy and some level of editorial review - non-local newspapers, national news organization websites, etc), beyond routine day-to-day news reporting (WP:NOTNEWS, WP:MILL). Agricolae (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 05:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 05:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 05:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 07:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- We do have "The murder of …" as a common genre of WP article for notorious cases. I am not qualified to judge whether this one qualifies. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I created the article, wouldn't have done so if I believed it wasn't notable. It has 21 independent sources from different news articles and multiple sections. The murder is well known in that because it was filmed, the footage and case has been featured in many documentaries including, American Journal, meaning people are constantly hearing about this. This isn't just another murder in the U.S. that was swept under the carpet, the fact it was filmed means it's still talked and learned about to this day, the exposure in the media from these documentaries is what makes this notable. Inexpiable (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• That is somewhat misleading. Those sources, as I already explained, are from routine news reports in the local media. These “documentaries” are actually television series broken down into segments. The video may have only been featured for a few moments, and, even so, notability is not inherited to them. The fact it was caught on a home security camera does not mean it is automatically notable, nor does the fact it is available for people to watch. You may think that personally, but these thoughts do not comply with policy.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Well the fact it was filmed at least makes it more notable than if it hadn't been. Whether you think it's notable for this site is your opinion and open to discussion, but you have to admit the fact it was filmed at least makes it slightly more notable than if it hadn't been? Heck if it hadn't been I would never have heard the story or even made the article. Very few murders are caught on camera, especially in 1990s U.S. that makes it somewhat unique at least. Inexpiable (talk) 09:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My hamsters birthday party was filmed. It is the only 2nd birthday party that rodent is ever going to have, so that makes it unique. That makes my hamster's birthday party notable, right? No, the fact that it was filmed does not make an event more notable than if it hadn't been. A filmed event must have received substantial non-routine coverage in reliable sources, just as with a non-filmed event. We don't get to make up our own criteria. Agricolae (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Of the 21 references, 17 are local reporting that would fall under WP:NOTNEWS (and WP:MILL). The LiveLeak site is not a reliable source (see WP:RS). The Federal Prisoner location site represents a primary source, and its extraction would seem to violate WP:NOR. That leaves the Rocky Mountain News story, which is more along the lines of 'slow news day', and not an indicator that this was noteworthy, just curious. You say the media exposure makes it notable because it is still being shown, but you haven't really provided any evidence that it has received anything beyond routine news coverage, other than to name a show that has been out of production for two decades. (You can't just say 'it was on gossip-rag show X at some point, take my word for it' and expect that to be good enough.) Agricolae (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• A few national news items, books, or non-local TV would go a longnway for establishing notability. At the current sourcing level notavility is not established. There might be more in newspaper archives.Icewhiz (talk) 03:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm not seeing notability, I am seeing WP:NOTNEWS and WP:MILL. Agricolae (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NOTNEWS, maybe, but it is certainly not WP:MILL. Don't know how many times I have to point out that this murder was caught on camera, a rare occurrence in the U.S., especially for the 1990s era. Inexpiable (talk) 09:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People get murdered all the time and individual editors don't get to decide for themselves what makes one murder more noteworthy that all the others. 'It is notable because my own personal criterion makes it notable' just doesn't cut it: another editor could just as well say it is not notable for the same subjective reason. It is notable if, and only if, it has received substantial non-routine coverage in reliable sources. In the case of events, (WP:EVENT) "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, 'shock' news, stories lacking lasting value such as 'water cooler stories,' and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance" (and that last is described at WP:LASTING - "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance . . . ". And again, you may think that is the case here, but we need a reliable source saying it served as such a precedent, not your own subjective conclusion.) Finally, addressing the appearance on American Journal, note that sensationalist/tabloid-type journalism usually does not confer notability (WP:SENSATIONAL). Agricolae (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because WP:NOTNEWS. You get some sociological analysis in there, appearances in textbooks, etc. and I might take it out of the mere news category. --Bejnar (talk) 04:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: does not meet WP:NCRIME per review of available sources; no lasting significance or societal impact. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Doesn't meet WP:NCRIME. Sources only offer WP:ROUTINE local coverage, and don't suggest that the event has any WP:LASTING effects. — Newslinger talk 15:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sufficient continuing coverage. DGG ( talk ) 18:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - I was on the fence with this, but the fact that there was no coverage of Cole's release from prison in 2004 (that's the date according to the article) suggests this hasn't had the lasting continued coverage we'd expect for a "keep". TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Coverage by the Cincinnati Enquirer was continuous and supports inclusion in wikipedia. Per WP:N/CA As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources. . There is nothing wrong with the Cincinnati Enquirer as a source. The fact that this maybe didn't make the national news is irrelevant. --1l2l3k (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But the fact that this is WP:ROUTINE coverage is relevant. A home-town paper will always report a murder, any arrest for the murder, trial and sentencing. That is what we are getting here. There is nothing wrong with the Cincinnati Enquirer as a source, and were it reporting on a crime in Los Angeles, that would make that crime notable, but the Cincinnati Enquirer covering just another Cincinnati murder in the same way it covers every other Cincinnati murder does not make this one any more notable: it is WP:MILL. (Or are you going to suggest that every murder is inherently notableby nature of the coverage every one of them engenders?) Agricolae (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not suggesting that every murder is inherently notable. And most of the murders are not covered by media at all. This murder was covered though, and largely so. Also, WP:MILL is an essay, not a policy. On the other hand, WP:ROUTINE doesn't mention murders (routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, speculative coverage, and tabloid journalism, so that doesn't include murders at all). My two cents. Will all due respect. --1l2l3k (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE can't be expected to enumerate every possible variety of routine event, it gives examples - note 'such things as' indicates it is not intended to be a comprehensive list. As to not all murders being reported, it depends on how many murders they get a year, but in places that don't get several hundred a year, every one really is reported. Agricolae (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let me then ask you this question: If this murder had been a routine one, would it had been reported for 3 years in at least 21 articles of the Cincinnati Enquirer (those are the sources that I see reported in the article right now)? I see the first one being August 3, 1995 and the last one being from March 12, 1998. Routine murders are not talked about for 30 months, am I wrong? --1l2l3k (talk) 13:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Murder, investigation, arrest, charging, pre-trial wrangling, jury selection, trial, verdict, sentencing - yeah, a bit on the long side, but 3 years doesn't seem out of order. I don't remember seeing there anything retrospective that would suggest more than just day-to-day crime and court reporting. Agricolae (talk) 14:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the article is notable enough to remain a page. No reason to delete and nowhere to redirect to. Information is too valuable to be deleted if the article would fit into a common research topic (which it is, especially in law school) Redditaddict69 (talk) 10:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No jurisprudence was introduced, I don't see how even a law student requires this specific murder for their research paper.Ifnord (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt we have to worry about those poor law students who won't be able to become lawyers if this murder does not have its own article on Wikipedia. Agricolae (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There are reasons to delete, as stated above, WP:NCRIME and WP:NOTNEWS. There is no indication of lasting coverage. Ifnord (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - continuing coverage is of a local nature. I would/will change my vote to "keep" if it can be shown to have continuing coverage outside the Cincinnati area (I couldn't find any). I wouldn't be surprised given the recent stand-your-ground controversies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.